Kathleen Bailey v. Carolyn Colvin
669 F. App'x 839
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Kathleen Bailey applied for disability insurance benefits; ALJ denied the claim and the district court affirmed. The Ninth Circuit reviews the appeal and affirms.
- ALJ found Bailey capable of light work with the specific limitation of only occasional right-arm overhead reaching (RFC restriction).
- ALJ discounted Bailey’s subjective symptom testimony, citing medical records showing improvement or treatment response (migraines, carpal tunnel improved with splint, hypoglycemia controlled by diet, cervical collar relief) and inconsistencies in her statements and activities.
- ALJ gave Bailey’s friend and former roommate, Robert Wolff, only "some weight" because his lay testimony was only somewhat consistent with the record.
- The ALJ did not supplement the record after Wolff’s testimony, finding no ambiguity or inadequacy requiring further inquiry.
- Any factual mistakes the ALJ made were held harmless because they did not affect the decision; Bailey failed to show prejudice from any errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ properly assessed Bailey’s credibility | Bailey contended ALJ improperly discounted her symptom testimony | Commissioner argued medical evidence and contradictions justified discounting credibility | Held: ALJ properly discounted credibility; reasons were specific, clear, and convincing |
| Weight given to lay witness (Wolff) testimony | Wolff’s observations supported greater limitations | Commissioner argued Wolff’s testimony was only somewhat consistent with record, so limited weight appropriate | Held: ALJ permissibly gave Wolff "some weight" and discounted his testimony as germane reason |
| Whether ALJ had a duty to supplement the record | Bailey argued ALJ should have sought additional evidence after lay testimony | Commissioner argued record was adequate and no ambiguity required further inquiry | Held: No duty to supplement; record was not ambiguous or inadequate |
| Whether ALJ’s hypothetical to vocational expert (VE) and RFC were adequate | Bailey argued VE hypothetical/RFC omitted limitations and so VE testimony unreliable | Commissioner argued hypothetical included all limitations supported by substantial evidence | Held: Hypothetical and RFC were proper; included limitations supported by substantial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Carmickle v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2008) (standards for discounting claimant credibility and harmless error review)
- Burrell v. Colvin, 775 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2014) (credibility and daily activities analysis)
- Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2005) (germane reasons required to discount lay witness testimony)
- Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503 (9th Cir. 2001) (treatment of lay witness evidence)
- McLeod v. Astrue, 640 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2011) (ALJ duty to further develop record only where ambiguity or inadequacy exists)
- Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747 (9th Cir. 1989) (ALJ may base hypothetical on limitations supported by substantial evidence)
- Ludwig v. Astrue, 681 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2012) (applicant must show prejudice from procedural errors)
- Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396 (2009) (standard for showing that an error affected substantial rights)